Chapter 8

Text: Let all the brothers of this Order be bound to have a brother as Minister General and servant of this fraternity […].

Service of authority and the accusation of disobedience levelled against the Capuchins

[Mature Brother] – Our wise father did not wish the body of this Order to be deformed and so he did not wish it to be headless without a top member and so made provision for a head that is a Minister General. The lover of unity also wanted it to have only one head and that there be only one pastor of the whole flock.

Scrupulous Brother. – In this matter you Capuchins are very much at fault, since you do not offer obedience to a Minister General. Even many good brothers are scrupulous about this matter and do not come to join you.

Mature Brother. – I say that those who make such an accusation have little information regarding the things mentioned in the Rule and also in law. I say the same about those who hesitate to join and show little fervour in this and lack zeal for the observance of the Rule.

Note well that the perfection of a superior does not consist in his title or the letters before his name. Non enim in sermone est regum Dei, sed in virtute. It consists rather in the life of the true superior, following the example [116r] of Christ, living a good life, conducting himself well, setting an example, consoling, correcting and governing his subjects with admonitions and words and leading them to the state of perfection, assisting them to progress in religious life and in the observance of the Rule. This is the precedence and status that they should hold over them not that based on pride and ambition. Subjects are bound to obey them in as much as they promote their salvation and no further. Therefore, it is not necessary to salvation that they hold the title of vicar or custos and any other title.

Therefore, Saint Francis is speaking about Custodes when he says: “when the General is not qualified the electors are bound to elect another as Custos”.

He addresses the superior here as “minister” or “custos”. The title of ‘minister’ does signify a major superior. Therefore, when he says in chapter ten that the brothers are obliged to obey their minister general alone, it means that the brothers are not obliged to obey anyone besides him and not other superiors, as the Pisan says.

Hugh says that in the old days all the superiors were called ministers, even though some were called more specifically custos or guardian. Thus the Rule does intend to call them only ministers, though in reality and in effect they are a minister, that is they minister to us those things that are necessary for our salvation, and so it does not say that they are to be called minister but that “they should be ministers and servants of the whole fraternity”.

Thus the title is not required for the observance of the Rule, but its application is. Neither saint Francis or any Pontiff every intended anything else.

Therefore, the person who serves and ministers what is required for salvation and helps us to observe the Rule [116v] is a real minister and can have the title if he so wishes. Therefore if a superior does not provide me with what is required for salvation, and does not assist me to observe the Rule, but does the opposite through bad example and an bad life he scandalises me and I do not regard him to be my superior, even though he might be called minister because obedience is aimed at observance of the Rule, not the Rule aimed at obedience. Thus, I am bound by the obedience that promotes observance of the Rule and salvation but not by that which obstructs this.

Brother Bernard, the first follower of Saint Francis, withdrew himself from obedience to Brother Elias, who was Minister General, because he destroyed the observance of the Rule and obstructed good brothers from observing it and lived for two years in the woods, fed by a woodcutter as we read in the Chronicles of the Order […].

Scrupulous Brother. – […] Why did Saint Francis call superiors ministers and servants?

Mature Brother. – The Pisan says that he did it as a true follower of the Gospel to show that he had given that title according to the Gospel, Luke 22: Qui maior est vestrum, sit vester minister. In doing this he imitated Christ, who came to serve and not to be served, and resembled His humility, Matthew 20. When it says: et dare animam suam in redemptionem pro multis it shows that such ministering refers chiefly to the salvation of the subjects and not to material provisions. This is what the Pisan says.

They add that Blessed Francis used the title servant so that they would not have dominion over their subjects and he wished that neither in name nor [117r] in effect would they be lords or masters but servants in humility and ministry in serving them. If these two titles were continually in the minds of those who presided over the Order they would not seek the office of superior with as much pride and ambition as they do now.

Consequently they should keep this in mind.

In the Earlier Rule Blessed Francis says that if anyone should perish the ministers would be bound to render an account before God and our Lord Jesus Christ since the care of souls has been committed to them. This is what they say. Does not Saint Francis say expressly below in chapter 10 that where the salvation of souls and observance of the Rule are concerned subjects may command superiors as lords would command their servants over whom they are masters? […]

Why the Capuchins were made subject to the Conventuals

Scrupulous Brother. – I like your line of reasoning very much. However, it does not account for the situation for it appears to be a frightful thing that having left the Observants you were made subject to the Conventuals.

Mature Brother. – Do they think that we are in a bad way because of this?

Scrupulous Brother. – They not only believe this but regard it as certain.

Mature Brother. – One must say that they suffer from great ignorance or great malice. However note: Firstly, that we did not move away from observance but embraced it fully as can be clearly seen by considering conditions before and after with respect to lifestyle, food, clothing, dwellings, the provision of things for the future, ceremonies, customs, sacristies and, in brief, everything which pertained to the true observance of the Rule, because true observance does not consist in titles but in deeds.

Secondly, note that if we were in a bad way by being subjected to the Conventual Fathers it would follow; firstly that the Conventual Fathers, at our head would be in a bad way; secondly, that their reforming brothers, that is those among the Conventual Fathers, were in a bad way, even those who lived in an observant manner with regard to the purity of the Rule, not relying on the title [118r] but on deeds; thirdly, it would follow that the “family” during the 70 years they lived subject to the Conventual Fathers and had Vicars and not Ministers General were always in a bad way and all the brothers who lived at the time were damned including Saint Bernardine, Blessed Brother John Capistran, Blessed James of the Marches, Blessed Feltrino and all the holy brothers who lived at the time. Thus during the whole time the world would have been deluded. The Council of Constance would have committed a grave error. Eugene IV and all his successors who confirmed his actions would have been in error […].

[119r] I say that we do not seek Bulls or privileges, as is stated in the Testament, to escape from persecutions of the body but of the soul. Thus we have now renounced privileges which would relax regular observance, and wish to be subject to every human creature for the love of God, as the Apostle says. We wish to be subject not only to our own superiors and to the Supreme Pontiff as the Vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church militant, but also to all Ordinaries as member of the Apostolic College and especially those who are involved with us. However as has been said we want nothing to do with privileges which bring relaxations since they are the cause of great ruin as can be seen clearly. Much was said about this in the first chapter.

Thus the privileges that we seek are for greater observance of the Rule. I am highly amazed by your brothers who have scruples over these spiritual privileges and do not have any scruple concerning so many privileges, briefs, and predictions that permit relaxation of the observance of the Rule and almost total ruin and destruction. This is especially the case with the Bull of Union with regard to administration, seals and precedence etc. by which the “family” has suffered such ruin, misfortune and damage that it would have been better if it never had happened which is so clear that it cannot be denied […].